[Andy]

How exactly to define the word “dimension”?

That is an excellent question, and something I’ve asked countless times over the years. Einstein broke the mold when he claimed time as a dimension.

Here’s the way I see it.

A dimension is any concept that can be expressed as opposing conditions on a simple 1-dimensional line segment.

0|———–|1

That is base for any dimension. The existence of something is expressed as 1, and the absence of that something is expressed as 0.

That covers a lot of ground in defining dimensions fundamentally.

up|———–|down

left|———-|right

happy|———–|sad

cold|————-|hot

fast|————-|slow

You get the idea.

There are a lot of dimensions to our existence, and the extent of which have never been explored or quantified. I would venture to say there are 1000’s of dimensions that form the reality which we are immersed in, and all are relevant on some level of understanding. How we understand these on a more practical level depends on what it is we’re trying to comprehend or figure out. A psychologist for example, is more focused on emotional dimensions, and that could spin off into a chemist looking to create a pharmaceutical to balance an emotional condition. A physicist would be more interested in the physical and/or spatial dimensions.

Physical objects clearly have three dimensions.

Do they?

Physical objects are made from points of matter. Our minds are what builds an image into a 3D object. It fills in the blanks to create imaginary lines, planes, and surfaces. We mentally smooth out the peaks and valleys into a continuous image. Our brains are image processors. Fundamentally, science shows us those “3D” objects are nothing more than an amalgamation of atoms. The only reason it looks like a 3D object to us is a function of scale and our proximity to that “object”. We’re are far enough away from visibly seeing individual atoms that the distance between them is imperceptible to the human eye. Fundamentally a 3D object isn’t any different from the zodiac shapes we’ve imagined in the sky. Our minds are very good at playing connect the dots. How “3D” something is, is a function of linear focus and a separation of energy.

To define our reality as 3D or 4D is a tad bit narrow minded, and a somewhat primitive perspective. In my humble opinion. After nearly 40 years of investigating the universe as a layman, I can honestly say, I have no clue what a 3D universe means to our reality. A single point of matter only requires 1-dimension to exists, but what that point means in relation to other points and to us requires 1000’s of equally relevant dimensions.

• This reply was modified 10 months, 1 week ago by  Andy.

[Jerry]

Hi Andy. Thanks for your response! I’ve watched your recent conversations with much interest.

My first question to you. Considering your sort of definition for “dimension”, why did Einstein “break the mold” when he claimed time a dimension? That is, if the term also applies to countless other areas? Within the realm of physics, the word “dimension” most typically applies to the physical dimensions of objects, the actual real three, plus the alleged fourth, and up to 28 or however many has been suggested by various popular scientists. Of course, the word “dimension” could also very well apply to the many polar opposites of other phenomena that exist. To possibly simplify things though, we could limit the definition specifically to physical dimensions, such as height, depth, and width.

You had some excellent points about how to know if physical objects have three dimensions. The way atoms often connect with gigantic collections of other atoms to form a given visible object, possibly doesn’t provide its own original “in tact” structure, since the atoms possibly don’t even physically connect with each other, that extremely minuscule spacial distances might exist between them.

I’ve heard a lot that “atoms mostly consist of empty space”. However, that doesn’t seem possible, since space isn’t physically there to exist with the protons, electrons, and neutrons. So atoms aren’t, at any level “composed” of empty space. For somewhat of a slightly similar visual example, if we were to consider a house, we typically don’t count the air (or empty space) within the house, as actually a part of the physical construction of the house, or of what all else exists, such as furniture, within each room. Just a thought!

Anyway, thank you for your recent activity with the threads you’ve been creating. I plan to respond much more. 🙂

• This reply was modified 10 months, 1 week ago by  Jerry.
• This reply was modified 10 months, 1 week ago by  Jerry.

[Andy]

Hello Jerry,

“Why did Einstein “break the mold” when he claimed time a dimension?”

<div>Its a very simple observation in human reasoning. Motion is equally relevant if not more so to properties of the universe. Why doesn’t motion have its own unique dimension? And I think that answer lies in how they viewed the universe way back when. An infinite static steady state. Motion has been ignored as a unique physical property of the universe, even though nothing physical can happen without motion. Time they saw as something physically occurring independent of motion. Time occurred in space acting upon matter in a discrete manner. Einstein viewed matter as being able to outrun time. It fades away to 0 at C.</div>

I use the logical limits of motion to understand the universe which presents a logical understanding of time and motion. [0] and [1]. [0] is a REAL at rest or dead stop, or the REAL minimum. [1] is the REAL maximum state of motion. Using the logical limits of motion you can sniff out the logical limits of time and how it is tightly realized through motion. If it takes 0 seconds for me to get from A to B, I would have to be traveling at an instantaneous velocity. Logically you cannot move faster than instantaneous velocity without traveling through time and arriving at your destination B before you left A. It’s not a time paradox, it’s a logic fact. Motion can’t occur without motion. [0] is the absence of motion. We already know that’s not physically possible. We are not traveling through time. Motion causes time to occur.

The thing is, with expansion, instantaneous motion becomes an open ended possibility that can never be realized or achieved. We have to be able to travel from one end of the universe to the other to define it. If its expanding then the definition remains in flux. If motion remains in flux, then time must also remain in flux. Motion is what is driving time. Then we have the other issue of a dimensionless state. There is no other end.

I suspect a dimensionless universal state lies beyond the material universe. We expand into it. Why not? Plenty of space. The universe is not perpetual motion. Its fuels is dimensionless space. The universe is a time frequency of 1, not to be confused with [1]. It is trying to complete 1 cycle of time.

You have raised the question of space. Space isn’t nothing, it’s the only something that physically exists. As you said, space is a void. That’s something. Only, it can’t be a void as long as a universe stands in its way. A void is what it wants to be. Not to imply a will or consciousness. It’s what’s fueling the mechanics of the universe. A void is an unstable state. It collapses in on and out on itself which introduces a dimension of motion. It gives it a physical orientation of inward and outward. And this is not to imply there was ever a beginning, or there is going to be an end. The states of matter that get created in the process are a lessor reflection of the universal process. We have beginnings and ends, the universe does not. It can’t, because time is trying to complete a beginning and end to cycle. It’s like a tsunami with no shoreline to breach, because it is expanding into virgin motionless space.

Close your eyes and imagine that void of space. Something cannot come from nothing. That’s a violation of logic. 0 does not equal 1, and 1 does not equal 0. What reason would there be for anything else to exist? I can’t think of any, can you?

[0] < ∞ < [1]

We’re in the middle.

∞ = constant of change.

• This reply was modified 10 months, 1 week ago by  Andy.

[Jerry]

Hi Andy.

I only have a quick minute, so I’ll say only this for now. A “void” or “empty space” isn’t physical at all. It is the complete absence of anything physical. Also, motion doesn’t cause time to occur. Time exists independently of anything physical. If there were literally somehow “nothing”, time would inevitably exist. So would space.

• This reply was modified 10 months, 1 week ago by  Jerry.

[Andy]

Hello Jerry,

Stephen Hawking stated that the sum total of all energy equals nothing. That’s a contradiction in our understanding of energy. (+e) + (-e) = 0. Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

He was referring to energy in two forms, contractive energy and expansive energy. And that’s all energy is at it’s core. Energy has to be in motion to experience it. The entire universe is observed to be in continual motion. No where has the absence of motion been observed.

What Stephen Hawking didn’t take into consideration is that energy is absolute. Motion is also absolute. Something either moves, or it doesn’t. Negative motion defies logic, because motion begins at [0].

[0] is the absence of something.

Looking back at Stephen Hawking remarks, this is actually what it meant.

[-e] + [+e] = [1]

If you combine all the energy in the universe you’re left with an absolute state. The only thing remaining would be space.

Space possesses the potential for energy to exist. But energy cannot exist without motion. Time cannot pass without change, and change cannot occur without motion.

Space = [1]

When space equals [1].

Motion = [0]

And when motion = [0]

Time = [1]

So, no, time does not go away, ever, nor does motion. In absolute space time cannot pass because motion is in an absolute state of [0]. Times frequency is absolute at [1], making time an absolute state without passage.

Space is a remarkable ingredient if you give it some thought. It sounds a lot like energy.

Space cannot be divided, ripped, or destroyed. Space is malleable. Space has depth. Space is a continuous unbreakable unified state. In an absolute state the value of space can only be described as [1]. It is a singular object existing everywhere. It can only be considered as a point geometrically.

What gives space motion is its potential to be [0], but [0] and [1] cannot occupy the same space, because [0] cannot not equal [1], and [1] cannot = [0].

Simply put, nothing cannot become something, and energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Has science ever detected anything beyond motion?

No.

No other ingredient besides space has ever been observed. There is no bottle of energy bits sitting on a shelf. Space is the only logical physical ingredient remaining, because it is the only physical thing that exists.

• This reply was modified 10 months, 1 week ago by  Andy.

[Jerry]

Hi Andy.

I have some doubts about the conclusions of your math. Of course, math is often quite useful. At other times, if it is accidentally inaccurate, it possibly does more to confuse than provide answers. Or maybe I just don’t understand it yet.

You wrote that, “Space possesses the potential for energy to exist.” This seems to somewhat over-extend what “space” realistically means. Space couldn’t “possess” a given capability, such as to provide the potential for energy. It doesn’t even have what we call “properties”. Space simply isn’t there (physically). It literally is “nothing”. So how is it ever possibly [1] ?

You also wrote, “When space equals [1]. Motion = [0] And when motion = [0] Time = [1]” How did you arrive at this though? What sort of mathematical process led you there?

[Andy]

You have to remove yourself from the problem and step back from the universe. We use arbitrary lengths of matter to make measurements. A meter for example, is based on a mass of platinum atoms strung together to form an arbitrary length. In the absence of matter ([+e] + [-e]) the only numeric value available to describe space is [1]. space=space, or [1]=[1]. Space is only equal to itself. [0] is the absence of space, which obviously is impossible. Absolute space and absolute 0 are two different concepts. Space is something, not the absence of space.

There is definitely a logical range of motion, as opposed to the way science views motion. That range of motion is absolute. [0] |—–| [1]

If it takes [0] seconds to go from A to B, your velocity is [1]. Conversely, if your motion is [0], time must be absolute in the opposite direction, [1].

Our perspective of time is inversely proportionate (equal and opposite) to motion. As we speed up time is perceived to slow. That’s not movement towards 0, it’s movement towards 1. A longer frequency relative to shorter frequencies. Or as I suggest, time expands and contracts with space. When we accelerate we gain mass.

When M=[1], T=[0], and when M=[0], T=[1].

So, if the value of space is [1], T=[1], and M=[0]. There is no motion in absolute space.

This is not math, it’s simple binary logic.

The universe is akin to a simple mechanical light switch. In the on position, existence = [1]. In the off position, existence = [0]. Existence being the presence of space, and non-existence being the absence of space.

Our existence is neither on nor off. We’re the throw between [0] and [1].

[0] < ∞ < [1]

We’re more like a reflection of the greater process.

At conception my value is 1. my journey through life is ∞. My death is 0.

Time runs backwards for matter until we cease to exist.

My Physical Existence 1 —-> 0 (Space)

My Journey 0 —-> 1 (Motion)

My Temporal Existence 1 —-> 0 (Time)

Infinity represents the constant of change. Change is motion. No motion, no change.

• This reply was modified 10 months, 1 week ago by  Andy.
• This reply was modified 10 months, 1 week ago by  Andy.

[Andy]

Why would space itself have dimensions? And why would it combine with time, to
create a continuum that propagates gravity? Why isn’t space instead, simply an empty
void which may or not be filled with mass or energy? Isn’t physical mass or objects
what actually have the dimensions, instead of the space in which they exist?

More great questions!

You are clearly running through the same mechanics in your mind that I have done for the past 40 years.

Space is dimensionless, and that’s all there is physically. There is no logical reason for any else to exist. Remove all perceived energy from the universe and space becomes a singular object at [1]. It’s a gigantic piece of motionless matter only equal to itself. It is [1] universe in scale. A single point.

Our universe is built on 3 fundamental ingredients.

Space = Physical Ingredient

Motion = Active Ingredient

Time = Perceptual Ingredient

Motion and time do not exist, they occur. We experience time and space through motion.

When Space = [1], Time = [1], Motion = [0].

Time cannot cycle without motion, and we cannot experience the physical nature of space without motion. S=[1] is a frozen state. S=[0] is the absence of existence, which is impossible.

When Space = [0], Time = [0], Motion = [1].

Motion = [1] is instantaneous motion from 1 end of space to the other, which is physically impossible in our reality.

[0] and [1] is absolute motion. We exist in a non-absolute state, or infinity. We cannot experience the absence of motion or instantaneous motion, because space and time are absolute in those states. We exist entirely in the middle. We cannot experience the absolute.

[0] < ∞ < [1]

Motion is energy, but energy cannot be experienced without motion.

We perceive our reality through point collisions. Our minds create spatial dimensions from point data collisions in a more meaningful way to us. It averages on the fly in real time filling in the blanks as it goes. We see a smooth wall or a door, and we see those in color. In reality on the most fundamental level, everything is an amalgamation of colorless points. There are no lines of planes or boxes. Those are the illusions of our reality. Good illusions mind you, but fundamentally non-existent on their own.

[Jerry]

Thanks again for your response!

I would agree that “space is dimensionless”, since it isn’t physical. I didn’t understand your next few statements though. That “space is all there is physically, and that there’s no reason for any else to exist.” (and more).

My view is that time and space aren’t physical at all. I’m unsure of what you meant about “perceptual” there (with time). For the concept of “motion” to seem understandable, is to refrain from somehow seeming to separate it from the actual physical objects in motion. Also, “exist” and “occur” aren’t always antonyms. I would also offer the suggestion that time and space would continue to exist, if “motion”, or any objects in motion, or even stationary objects, didn’t exist. Just a thought!

• This reply was modified 10 months, 1 week ago by  Jerry.

[Andy]

<div>” I would also offer the suggestion that time and space would continue to exist, if “motion”, or any objects in motion, or even stationary objects, didn’t exist. Just a thought!”</div><div>

Time, space, and motion always exist. That comes down to understanding them on a numeric or mathematical level.

When S=[1], T=[1], and M=[0].

What that means is that space must always exist. Space without motion (M=0), though, is a frozen state, so time must reflect as a finite frequency because space lacks change with a finite value. What we end up understanding is that space and time are equal. Time doesn’t physically exist, so it can’t not exist. Time is derived from motion. M=0 isn’t the absence of motion, it represents the potential for motion, BUT, something has to move for motion to make any sense at all, which leads us back to space. Space is the only thing that physically exists. Space must always exist, because time and motion must always exist in some state. We experience the universe through motion and time.

One of the biggest challenges in explaining any of this is that the words to describe what I’m trying to explain don’t exist. For example, as I see it, our universe has been expanding endlessly. There was never a big bang, only expansion. That doesn’t necessarily mean that space is expanding, as much as it means the extent of matter is expanding. Space is endless in extent, but its core value is [1]. Matter is a derivative of space, so matter is less than the whole. I think the expansion of the universe we exist in is the result of the cascading creation of matter along the head of a wave. Motionless/dimensionless space contracts (moves) into dimensional matter.

Everywhere I look in science I see evidence of what I’m suggesting.

Most recently (9-2022) science created matter from what they claim was “nothing”. Claiming nothing though is flawed reasoning. 0=0. Nothing cannot be anything else but 0. They did not create matter from “nothing”, they created matter from space, which is greater than nothing. It may seem like nothing, but I will challenge anyone to argue the meaning of nothing mathematically. 0 is 0. It’s the absence of something. Something cannot be created from an absence. That makes no sense. [1] can always be divided in half, where 0 is indivisible. Something can only come from something else.

Mathematically and logically I am 100% correct. Something cannot come from nothing, unless someone wants to do a hand-wave on the problem. I can’t debate a belief.

</div>

[Andy]

I really hate the time limits on editing posts.

I wanted to clarify Time and Motion.

Neither Time nor Motion physically exist. They are phenomena that allow us to experience the universe. Motion and time are closely related because they are emergent properties of space. Time is equal to space numerically, and motion is the inverse of time, or runs in the opposite direction perceptually. When M=[1], T=[0] and S=[0]. We can’t experience time or space at a maximum state of motion. Conversely, we can’t experience motion or space at a maximum state of time.

Roughly translating to, we cannot experience finite conditions.

What this means to me is that anything we experience must be in motion. There is no true “at rest” anywhere in the known universe. There are no constants. Continuous change is a requirement of the observable universe. There are no limits to the relative nature of our existence. The speed of light is not constant, but it is constantly changing in a linear manner giving us the illusion of a constant velocity. “At rest” in our universe is strictly a matter of perspective. We’re only at rest relative to other things accelerating at the same relative velocity.

The linear change in our existence is fundamentally why our universe is bound to mathematical principals. It’s why physics exists. There must be an underlying continuous linear process occurring. That linear process is the natural rudimentary numbering system of the universe that makes math possible in making any and all scientific predictions.

There is a reason for everything.

[Andy]

The last thing I want to add is about motion. Motion is taken completely for granted universally in science. We think motion is a causal condition in the universe. I walk across the room because my muscles are creating the motion/mechanics necessary for me to move. Massless particles move at the speed of light because that’s what they do. Science considers it a natural phenomena without any real causation. Light moves at C because that’s what it does.

Reality is far different.

Motion is dynamic, and we merely transform an existing state of motion within matter to change position. Motion is transformative. The speed of light is dynamic.

The lower limit is defined by deceleration in the expansion of the universe. The upper limit is defined by acceleration in the contraction of matter. Our range of motion is always slightly greater than [0], but slightly less than [1]. The upper and lower limits of motion are dynamic and ever changing. The range of motion extends with the expansion and contraction of the universe. The higher the possible limit over time, the lower the possible limit over time.

Motion does not exist physically, it’s a property of space.

As I have suggested earlier and many time previously, the extent of matter expands over time which we view as expansion universally. What we haven’t identified yet is contraction. That’s what matter is doing. The distance between galaxies changes over time through the contraction of matter, not the expansion of space. Space occupies 100% of existence. Matter occupies less than space, but more than nothing.

[0] < ∞ < [1]

That’s the universe. We exist in the middle moving from 1 to 0. It’s the way it has always been and always will be. There was never a big bang, but it’s not a steady state either. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle.

We exist in a Persistent Universe, which is neither finite nor statically infinite.

[Andy]

To reiterate my view on an infinite universe.

A static infinite universe is an oxymoron. It’s paradoxical. It’s flawed reasoning.

Static = finite.

If we claim the universe to be a static infinity, we’re stating that infinity is finite, negating the meaning of infinity entirely.

Endlessness isn’t a static condition, it’s an ongoing process without end. That’s what makes endlessness endless. Infinity can never reach a static state of endlessness. That makes no sense logically.

What fills the entirety of the total universe is space. It occupies 100%. Matter cannot occupy the entirety of space, because matter is a derivative byproduct of space in motion. Matter is a part of the whole.

I again reach limitation in vocabulary trying to describe the universe as I see it.

The space we traverse is not the same space beyond our domain or universe.

The space we exist in, is in motion. The space beyond our universe in either direction is not. That space is finite. Our observable universe moves into finite space, and because there is nothing impeding its motion, it will expand and contract simultaneously endlessly.

That’s a persistent universe.